Forfeiture.
...
I do agree with criticism of a lack of any argument to weight, but to me conduct is still a small factor which can shift the allotment.
Duh.
This is effectively a tie, with conduct pushing victory to pro… Not the worst conduct, but the type of game played by the instigator that irks me.
Sitting back spectating and claiming BoP hasn’tbeen absolutely reached, only works if they take no steps towards it. With their various biblical quotations and showing the common linguistics connection of fairies to angels, it became con’s duty to then refute the weak case offered, which he chose to not do (opting instead to rest his case when confronted with sone biblical evidence… weak evidence, but the voter should be shown why it doesn’t work)
Conduct: Con.
A cheeky disadvantage he gave himself by skipping R1, is an argument weakness more so than any conduct issue.
Comparatively, pro engaged in plagiarism throughout his case.
Any vote based on that alone would be fair. And no, I did not need to see con's analysis.
...
As a favor to both debaters, I am continuing.
Arguments:
Pro's case is that mistakes are defined by the outcomes.
Con uses cost benefit analysis to disagree. He also makes a historical error in mentioning NATO's role in the war.
Pro goes all in after the NATO angle... Which might as well be game over for him, since he let an inconsequential historical mistake become to focal point of his argument. ... The rest of it is too weak to make more than a passing mention of.
Con comes back pointing out why the efforts still mattered even if he previously stated the wrong name for a post WWII military alliance organization; which shows that the actual points he made within that flawed bit were dropped.
...
I actually really appreciate the final round, as both were cleanly restating what they believe the debate determined (even if pro's lazy use of AI turned his into product placement... and not very good product placement).
Feels like a concession; but the level of forfeiture (plus a null round) would already settle the matter.
Con, I hope your real life stuff is doing better by now.
FF
F
F
If doing this again, I'd modify the resolution for shared BoP. As is, that one is better, is indeed one to which pro has the primary BoP; which basically allowed con to sit back and argue metric is equal by each standard (he did a little more than this, but not a lot more).
I adored pro's R1, even if that should have been in the description. As is, it took away a third of his opportunities. He did do a good appeal to tradition in there, but he did not extend it or otherwise follow up on it to make it count.
The changing definitions and the meter vs 4000 km, begs two questions... First one of frustration: Why the hell didn't they just change it, it's such a small change that only the very best equipment would need to be altered? Second for this debate: why is the foot not held to the same standard?
Pro touched on some good points. Fractions are really useful, but he didn't explain why... Actually, there's arguments that we should use a base 12 or even base 16 system, to make fractions easier at the market. Making things easier with imperial, could trump cons point of simplicity. This was of course not executed.
A point I thought was almost strong was the one about definitions, and how much they needed to change. Con was able to defend that as improvements, which flipped it to favor him. Something I would have liked to see from pro is definitions of imperial units, so that we could actually compare and contrast to determine if one is better.
Metric was not only proven equal, but via Precision, Simplify, and Utility, metric was shown to have a meter up on imperial.
Going to keep this short and simple: when accused of plagiarizing from an AI, and you don’t tell the AI your name so it treats you as the third person… yeah, this plus forfeiting reduced it to a foregone conclusion conclusion.
"I suppose people who pirated movies in the early 2000s might laugh at the notion that they wouldn't steal a car"
Lol... Also, fuck I'm old.
This debate is fairly close, with me heavily agreeing with points from both sides; and I suspect a third round would have tipped it to pro's favor. As is, there's outlier uses of it which shouldn't be banned, but a general ban seems most ethical (even if it cannot be perfectly enforced); with more time, he likely could have gotten some headway on more uses that should not be banned to imply a general ban ought to not be done.
Ultimately, I had to really consider if the intent of the debate was speech writers or spell check (FYI, that's not AI). Con at one point insists pro must prove all use of AI must be banned, but the resolution he wrote is "Artificial Intelligent Agents" which I am not going to take too literally (of course we ban spambots), but it clearly shows the intent of the debate is a sophisticated level of AI use, going well beyond asking an AI to open another tool to apply spell check for you (even if pro would also argue against that since it's equivalent to stealing a car).
So should faking human effort by plagiarizing AIs be banned? Pro made a compelling case that it is plagiarism, and frankly, gets style points for catching that cons definition plenty of humans don't count as people. His point to human slaves deprived of rights drives this home.
Cons case opened with some nice rhetoric but a lack of substance, and then proceeded to let pro define the debate, and even tried to refute the most trivial things like the bike analogy.
Pro builds a case around No True Police Officer...
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/No_True_Citizen
Con disagrees with officers as they exist actually being the perfection pro demands of them, later in the debate even calling out a famous murder which was caught on film and carried out by a police officer (one who should not have been one for quite awhile before that incident).
In a perfect world their badges would fall off or crumble when they break the law, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the world we live in; so police brutality unfortunately exists even if it should not.
Forfeiture
I'll admit I had trouble trying to understand where pro was going with his case. The end result is that the bible made all the creatures on the planet all at once, and humans and cavemen live side by side (an actual point he made), change is completely impossible... He had such supporting evidence as repeatedly telling us what AI told him, which includes that if you suppose evolution happened over only 6000 years instead of tens of millions, then it's no better an answer than creation, which he mistakes for it saying checkmate atheists!
Con on the other hand builds a case showing that the available data fits with the theory (hence it being a theory instead of a hypothesis; such as the FSM monster of whatever came from the sky and did it). He supports his case with numerous sources which can be easily viewed, and maintains such a clear trajectory that he simply extends one of his rounds instead of filling in anything when nothing was needed. He answered questions, such as explaining that not all organisms change at exactly the same pace as pro baselessly claims evolution requires. A good amount of his case rests on DNA similarity being data which supports the theory.
Both want to draw, but con wants to draw with so much more variety and even drew a picture to demonstrate his supreme commitment to drawing.
